OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Om Parkash Sharnfta has been detained by virtue of an order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act) 1974. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India he prays for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus claiming his detention to be violative of the provisions of the aforesaid Act as Well as the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. We dismissed the petition and hereby record the reasons therefor.

(2.) The petitioner visited Hong Kong in August, 1981. Hi returned to India on August, 15, 1981 by Pan American flight which landed at Palam New Delhi. He was searched but nothing was recovered. On August 15 1981 one Sunil Dutt, earlier known as Surinder Pal Sharma aftd working as Loader with Air India, came from Bangkok to Delhi. He was searched and some contraband goods were found in his custody. He Was, accordingly, arrested. On further investigation, he implicated the petitioner in the alleged smuggling activity along with some others. The petitioner was accordingly, arrested on August, 18, 1981 by the customs authorities. He was produced before a Magistrate on August 19, 1981. He was also bailed out. During his interrogation the petitioner made certain statements and certain recoveries were made from his house. On February 15, 1982 a show cause notice was issued to him by the customs authorities. The impugned order of detention was passed on May 24, 1982 and the petitioner was arrested and detained. He was served with the grounds of detentiononMay28,1982. The petitioner made two representations, one to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi and the other to the Central Government from Jail. The Ad ministrator reject the representation onuly 14, 1982, The Central Government had earlier rejected the representation made to it on July 8, 1982. The petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on July 16, 1982 and on the advise tendered the detention was confirmed on August 3, 1982.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged his detention on various grounds but at the hearing only four grounds were pressed. These were, first, that the valuation report, which is the basis of the valuation of the contraband goods, was not given to the petitioner despite requests made to the Administrator as well as the Advisory Board. Therefore, the petitioner's right to make an effective representation was denied to him in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Secondly, no insopection was allowed to the petitioner of the watch movements etc., alleged to have been recovered from Sunil Dutt or the watch, alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner's house. Thirdly, the petitioner did not know what was the recovery made from Sunil Dutt. Fourthly, the petitioner was denied assistance of a friend at the hearing of the Advisory Board despite request.